NDAA Indefinite Detention Vote - Smith-Amash Amendment Fails 182-238 (roll call inside)

Congress still okay with indefinite detention and torture of Americans

May 18, 2012

Even after a federal court deemed the NDAA unconstitutional, the US House of Representatives refused to exclude indefinite detention provisions from the infamous defense spending bill during a vote on Friday.

An attempt to strike down any provisions allowing for the US military to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge from next year’s National Defense Authorization Act was shot down Friday morning in the House of Representatives.

Following discussions on an amendment to the 2013 NDAA that was proposed by Rep. Adam Smith (D-Washington) and Rep. Justin Amash (R-Michigan), House lawmakers opted against passing the law by a vote of 182-238. Had the Smish-Amash amendment passed, military detention for terror suspects captured in the US would have been excluded in the annual defense spending bill. Provisions that allows for that power, Sections 1021 and 1022, were inserted into the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2012. President Barack Obama signed that legislation on New Year’s Eve, essentially authorizing the US Armed Forces to detain Americans indefinitely at military facilities over only allegation of ties with terrorists and subject them to enhanced interrogation tactics on par with torture.

On Thursday night, Rep. Amash took to his Facebook page to address the amendment with his followers. “No matter how much I am slandered or my positions are demagogued, I will NEVER stop fighting to defend your liberty and the Constitution,” wrote the congressman.

Back on Capitol Hill, Rep. Amash circulated a document to his fellow lawmakers on Thursday outlining his proposed amendment. In urging his colleagues to vote yes on the Smith-Amash amendment, the representative from Michigan explained to Congress that the proposal would offer protection to non-citizens of the United States and is the only amendment up for discussion that would guarantee Americans a charge and trial.

Elsewhere in the paper, Rep. Amash harped on a decision out of a federal court earlier this week that ruled that the NDAA violated the US Constitution.
“Our constituents demand that we protect their right to a charge and a trial — especially after the NDAA was ruled unconstitutional this week,” wrote Rep. Amash.

That decision came Wednesday when United States District Judge Katherine Forrest shunned the NDAA’s indefinite detention provision, saying it had a “chilling impact on First Amendment rights.”

“An individual could run the risk of substantially supporting or directly supporting an associated force without even being aware that he or she was doing so,” wrote Judge Forrest, who then cited complaints for American journalists who were concerned that they’d be imprisoned without charge solely for speaking with alleged terrorists.

Attorney Carl Mayer represented the plaintiffs in this case and spoke with RT after Judge Forrest’s decision. Mr. Mayer revealed that while the Obama administration can — and most likely will — file an appeal, “we are suggesting that it may not be in their best interest because there are so many people from all sides of the political spectrum opposed to this law.”

Although that opposition has indeed been widespread since even before this year’s NDAA was signed by President Obama on December 31, it was absent on Capitol Hill this Friday when the Smith-Amash amendment was shot down.
Moments before the amendment went up for vote, Rep. Amash wrote on Facebook, “We know the NDAA’s detention provision is unconstitutional. The House will vote on one substantive solution.”

“Will we fix it? And if we don’t, how will we explain that to our constituents?”

http://www.infowars.com/congress-still-okay-with-indefinite-detention-and-torture-of-americans/
 
My rep. (Gosar) abstained on the Smith-Amash amendment, then voted YAY! on the NDAA, and with that he lost my vote. (Not that I'll vote the one-termer also-ran loser Kirkpatrick, because she would have voted YAY! also.) It's strange, since he voted Nay on the thing the first time around. I contacted his office the other day and thanked him for voting nay previously, and asked that he support the amendment and vote Nay again on the NDAA. I wonder why he changed his mind.

Flake voted Nay on the S-A amendment too. And he wants to be elected to the US Senate.

Yes, this is stunning. Gosar is my Representative that I was talking about in my previous post on this thread. The OP lists Gosar as a co-sponsor of the Smith-Amash Amendment!!! And then not only did he abstain from voting on it, but he voted yes on the NDAA?! I told him in my email that if he voted for the Smith-Amash Amendment I promised I would vote to re-elect him in November. Don't have to worry about that now, I guess.

Incredible.
 
Yes, this is stunning. Gosar is my Representative that I was talking about in my previous post on this thread. The OP lists Gosar as a co-sponsor of the Smith-Amash Amendment!!! And then not only did he abstain from voting on it, but he voted yes on the NDAA?! I told him in my email that if he voted for the Smith-Amash Amendment I promised I would vote to re-elect him in November. Don't have to worry about that now, I guess.

Incredible.

He's listed as a cosponsor here (click on Amendments tab and search for "151"):
http://www.rules.house.gov/Legislation/legislationDetails.aspx?NewsID=828

Justin Amash also lists him as a cosponsor at the top of this letter:
http://amash.house.gov/sites/amash.house.gov/files/NDAA Fact Sheet.pdf

Someone must have gotten to him at the last minute.
 
All I can say is that it is time to clean house. Unfortunately too many people are too stupid to care. So many enemies to the Constitution in our government.
 
Compliance through exhaustion.

And if we had managed to pass this amendment, it would have been repealed in a "tack on" amendment to some obscure omnibus spending bill six months from now.

Not to be too overly cynical or defeatist here, but we have got to face the facts:

The political process is, for all intents and purposes, closed.


Ah hell! I'm pissed! You know why I'm pissed? Because we had no organized effort to fight for this amendment! Just a couple of thread with only a handful of posts! When I saw this yesterday I didn't get a chance to do anything because I was tied up all day and figured I'd missed the boat. At least I made sure to donate to the campaign. Then I saw this today, saw I had one more chance and made the call. But I realize it's now too little two late. We had a freaking week of endless threads over Rand's "gayer" remark followed by another week of people parsing, crying and moaning over ever stinking email that came out of the campaign. "Did Paul really write this?" Of course he did! "Did the CIA get to Paul"? Of course they did NOT! And if they did it wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference! The campaign just told us what we already knew. Actually capturing the nomination is beyond a long shot. Throwing good money after bad in statewide TV ads in remaining primaries is a dumb idea. It's best to keep trying to get as many delegates as possible and see what we can do with that. That should have been the end of it. But nooooooo. We've got folks running around wanting "refunds" and crap. And while all the bellyaching and naval-gazing and hating gays and hating people who hate gays and hating people who could care less about gays but don't want the federal government telling states what kind of marriage licenses to write was going on We let an opportunity to repeal one of the worst assaults on the bill of rights in our generation slip through our fingers!

You know, when Wikipedia didn't want SOPA to pass they made it so that you couldn't even sign onto their sight. Wikipedia was "blacked out" except for the "Please call congress" page. Google and Facebook took less drastic, but similar moves. If we are going to win this fight we've got to get serious! We have to focus on what's important. We have to find the fights we can possible win and fight them! Come on people! Think!
 
Last edited:
Thank you for the roll call on the amendment. As far as I am concerned, all those who voted "No" on this amendment are guilty of high treason and should be tried in a court of law and sentenced appropriately.
 
Thank you for the roll call on the amendment. As far as I am concerned, all those who voted "No" on this amendment are guilty of high treason and should be tried in a court of law and sentenced appropriately.

Brad Miller voted yes, which is a relief. He had also voted against the original NDAA. Looks like at least he is good in civil liberties.
 
I wonder WTF is going on in their minds... Like, what do they actually think? It's not rational what most these politicians do, and what they say...

I want to hear, one reason, ONE REASON, why this bill is fucking necessary in the first place when terrorism is at an all-time LOW!
 
Last edited:
What ever would we do without great Tea Party Constitutuionalists like Bachmann and West?
 
Stuart Rhodes is coming to Raleigh! Wednesday the 30th of May, 2012.

We are holding an educational meeting at 4PM on May 30th in the NCGA for the State Legislators to learn about Agenda 21 and the NDAA. Stuart Rhodes, founder of Oathkeepers will be there to present about 10-15 minutes on the NDAA.
 
Im curious why they didn't name the amendment something like the American Freedom Act.
 
Back
Top